On Aug 23, 2012, at 11:35 AM, Rob Weir wrote: > On Thu, Aug 23, 2012 at 2:33 PM, Dave Fisher <dave2w...@comcast.net> wrote: >> I'm not comfortable having a PMC Chair election and nomination on ooo-dev. >> > > It appears the IPMC was able to do this for their own Chair.
Well they were able to reach consensus, but this was after a very, very long set of discussions that backed into selecting a new Chair. The discussion was not initially about the Chair. > >> I also agree that we should form the PMC membership first. >> > > See my response to Dennis on this. There is no PMC here, only a PPMC. Certainly and already replied. Maybe we should just call it the once and future PMC and stop having a silly semantic argument. I've written what I want to say about this today and will now go back to work. Regards, Dave > >> Regards, >> Dave >> >> On Aug 23, 2012, at 11:22 AM, Dennis E. Hamilton wrote: >> >>> I suggest that the initial Project Management Committee (PMC) needs to be >>> identified before the election of a Chair from that body is undertaken. >>> >>> Also, this seems like a very good time to review, for the benefit of all >>> here, what the duties of PMC members are and, with respect to that, what >>> the specific responsibilities of the Chair are and what the special >>> standing of the Chair is so its accountability can be carried out. >>> >>> - Dennis >>> >>> >>> >>> -----Original Message----- >>> From: Rob Weir [mailto:robw...@apache.org] >>> Sent: Thursday, August 23, 2012 10:36 >>> To: ooo-dev@incubator.apache.org >>> Subject: [DISCUSS] Proposed PMC Chair nomination process >>> >>> Now that the community graduation ballot has passed, one of our next >>> tasks is to identify a PMC Chair. >>> >>> You can read about the duties of a PMC Chair here: >>> http://www.apache.org/dev/pmc.html#chair >>> >>> How do we want to do this? >>> >>> A strawman proposal: >>> >>> 1) Nominations would be open for 72 hours. Anyone can nominate >>> someone for the role. Self-nominations are fine. And of course >>> nominations can be declined. >>> >>> 2) If there is only one nomination, then we are done, provided there >>> are no sustained objections. >>> >>> 3) If there is more than one nomination we discuss on the list for >>> another 72 hours. Discussion would primarily be on ooo-dev, but some >>> subjects might be directed to ooo-private. >>> >>> 4) If after 72-hours discussion there are still two or more nominees >>> then we vote. Everyone would be welcome to vote, but binding votes >>> would be from PPMC members. If there are more than 2 candidates we >>> would probably need to use a more complicated voting system, or have a >>> run-off vote if none of the nominees receive an outright majority. >>> >>> Any improvements or alternatives to this basic scheme? >>> >>> Regards, >>> >>> -Rob >>> >>
